Talk:Morrigan's Child
Notability There is quite a few problems with this article. For example, the capitalised "child" in the name, the fact that the existence of the child is player-dependant, the quote is about the child, not by the child, and so far we've only used it for player characters. But to the point. Do we really need an article for this just yet? So far everything we know about the child can easily be covered in Morrigan's article. I think it would be best to have an article when we get something more substantial, like a name or an actual appearance. Say we have this article and then link it everywhere, and Inquisition the child will be named, we will have to change the name of the article and all the links. henioo (da talk page) 19:05, September 27, 2014 (UTC) I agree that this page isn't necessary. As said above, it's a character that only exists depending upon a person's playthrough, it's never been stated that the child exists if the ritual wasn't done and Morrigan didn't romance a male Warden. Until he has a name and more specifics about the character himself (beyond the details of his conception), I don't think this page is warranted. -- 22:35, September 27, 2014 (UTC) Hey there everyone, I'm the creator of this page, and i must say before anything thank you for you comments.You have both been polite, and very good points about it. I made this page because whenever i looked for information about Morrigan's child, I could not find any. Because of this I thought that I should make a page about it. Just so you know. this is my first time making Wikia pages, as I had only made an account just to make this. Anyway, the page could possibly get deleted (well probably) because it has been reported, and you know what? I'm okay with that. It probably was not a good idea to make a page before Dragon Age Inquisition come out. And for that, I am sorry. Thank you all for the nice comments, and to the small changes made on the article. I know it was a stupid and pointless page, but I just wanted to contribute a bit to the Wiki that has helped me out through the game so much. Once again, sorry EdwardJenko :You're alright, there is no need to aplogize, and definitely not so many times. ;) That article was way better than my first, anyway. And as for there not being any info on the child on the wiki, that is a good point. I have raised it also on Morrigan's article talk page, and then I was going to add the child into her article indeed, but somewhow I forgot about it until now. It is true that we should have information about the child on the wiki. May I suggest registering for an account if you intend to contribute further? :) henioo (da talk page) 09:26, September 28, 2014 (UTC) :: I went ahead and fleshed out Morrigan's article about the ritual and the child, so that we now have info about the OGB on the wiki. I still don't think this page is necessary, though I appreciate the good intent behind the making of it :). -- 05:26, October 1, 2014 (UTC) Now that we have imagery of Morrigan's child (the Old God Baby, or whatever), I think there is possibly now justification enough for the character to have an article of it's own. I do agree with some of the concerns raised - though others such as having to change links, I don't agree, it isn't tolling. Anyway, given the light of the new aforementioned imagery, it might be worth others casting their opinions before the article is deleted. Alexsau1991 (talk page) 21:09, October 4, 2014 (UTC) I agree with Axelsau1991, the new concept art for DA:I suggests that the child will be in the game, and therefore a person of notable interest. I say we keep the page. ( 00:53, October 19, 2014 (UTC)) Should there be a separate article about Rowan then? She only exists if Connor dies. I say wait until the kid has a game appearance that can be screen-captured. After all, he may look different depending on his father. In which case he's basically a different character. Same goes for his "old god" status. Believe it! (talk) 01:25, October 19, 2014 (UTC) Since it's been a few weeks and there seems to be more weight on the side of "in favor of keeping" I've gone ahead and removed the deletion tag, and added the "unofficial name" tag since we don't know the kid's name yet. -- 01:21, October 19, 2014 (UTC) :You posted this mere seconds before I posted my recommendation to delete. Please review. Believe it! (talk) 01:25, October 19, 2014 (UTC) :: More input is always good, so I've added the tag back once again. I'd like to come to a consensus soon, though, if possible, so if more people could chime in that'd be helpful. -- 01:33, October 19, 2014 (UTC) :::Thank you. I would also like to add that "Morrigan's Child" isn't a character name. So the article isn't even really titled something definitive. If we had a name, at least that would be something. Compare that to my above example of Rowan, the possible "Eamon's Child" if Connor dies and Isolde has another baby with Eamon. At least she has a name. But are we to create an article with her as well? Believe it! (talk) 02:25, October 19, 2014 (UTC) We're really jumping the gun on this one. Wasn't the concept art of Morrigan's son from the leaked art? I don't want to give anyone the opportunity to upload the artwork yet again before it's officially released and add it to this or any other article. Let's stop being hasty and just wait for the actual release of the book and the game before we revisit this article. It keeps the speculation to a minimum. --Death by Cheese (talk) 02:35, October 19, 2014 (UTC) Again, nothing has changed. I've heard of no official confirmation of the child's appearance. If what's online is leaked, one: it is not right to base wiki articles on that, two: if it's only art, it may not actually end up being in the game, like the Loghain's Fade Maric, or the concept art of the Cerberus agents storming Shepard's cabin on Normandy, which didn't happen. henioo (da talk page) 06:44, October 19, 2014 (UTC) Since the artwork that persuaded me to vote against deletion turned out to be leaked, I am changing my vote in favour until we see something official. (Although the argument regarding 'Rowan' is incomparable; she has a single, very minor, mention thus). Alexsau1991 (talk page) 13:59, October 19, 2014 (UTC) :I think it's a perfect comparison. Both are mentioned (either in epilogue or DLC). Both are possible characters depending on player choice. Both can NOT exist depending on player choice. Neither has been seen. Rowan actually has a name and a definitive appearance, in that she will definitely look like Eamon and Isolde. OGB could look different depending on who the father is, and his name is not revealed yet. So Rowan is a better candidate for an article as it stands now, but even she should not get an article. We should wait for in-game confirmation of these characters. Believe it! (talk) 23:46, October 19, 2014 (UTC) :: Has it even been said that Morrigan's child will appear in DA:I? -- 00:09, October 20, 2014 (UTC) :::I don't know. I have not read any such announcement. I would think not, for the same reason the Hero won't appear in Inquisition. Believe it! (talk) 01:27, October 20, 2014 (UTC) :::: That's what I thought. So there's not even a guarantee that we'd be able to expand this article anytime soon or even have a name. -- 01:55, October 20, 2014 (UTC) Until the child exists as something more than leaked art, is confirmed to actually appear in DA:I or have any bearing on the game, and is given a name, I am in favor of deleting the page as speculative. Any information on the child can be folded into the Morrigan page until further information is revealed. LadyAeducan (talk) 14:02, October 20, 2014 (UTC) There's been enough speculation and discussion over this character. If it does get deleted, maybe it should instead receive a section under Morrgian's entry? He does get talked about as much as any main character. DAWUSS (talk) 14:43, October 20, 2014 (UTC) : I added info about him in the involvement section on Morrigan's article, using this one as a base. The only thing that's missing is the child's mention in Witch Hunt, which I haven't played in some time so can't contribute to it yet. -- 19:52, October 20, 2014 (UTC) More than enough time has passed and the majority consensus is in favor of deletion, so I am going ahead and deleting the article. -- 05:10, October 27, 2014 (UTC)